On Sun, Jan 23, 2022 at 11:59 PM Richard Henderson <
richard.hender...@linaro.org> wrote:
> On 1/21/22 7:07 AM, Atish Patra wrote:
> > Add the definition for ratified privileged specification version v1.12
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Atish Patra <ati...@rivosinc.com>
> > ---
> > target/riscv/cpu.h | 1 +
> > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+)
> >
> > diff --git a/target/riscv/cpu.h b/target/riscv/cpu.h
> > index 4d630867650a..671f65100b1a 100644
> > --- a/target/riscv/cpu.h
> > +++ b/target/riscv/cpu.h
> > @@ -82,6 +82,7 @@ enum {
> >
> > #define PRIV_VERSION_1_10_0 0x00011000
> > #define PRIV_VERSION_1_11_0 0x00011100
> > +#define PRIV_VERSION_1_12_0 0x00011200
>
> Is there any good reason for defining things this way, as opposed to a
> simple enumeration?
> A simple enum would eliminate the need for
>
>
Agreed. A simple enum would be much nicer. I was just following the
previous definition of
PRIV_VERSION_1_10_0 & PRIV_VERSION_1_11_0.
I am not sure about the reason behind this scheme.
@Alistair Francis <alistair.fran...@wdc.com> Is there any history behind
this scheme ?
or Are you okay if I change it ?
> > + /* The default privilege specification version supported is 1.10 */
> > + if (!csr_min_priv) {
> > + csr_min_priv = PRIV_VERSION_1_10_0;
> > + }
>
> in patch 5.
>
>
> r~
>
